Double Standards in the Skies?

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a surprise assault against Israel that fundamentally changed the regional and global perception of security in the skies over the Middle East. In the months since, Israel has faced continuous aerial assaults, and, for the first time in history, directly from Iran itself. Thousands of rockets, UAVs, and ballistic missiles have targeted Israeli territory, including its central aviation hub: The Ben Gurion International Airport.

And yet, remarkably, Israeli airspace never closed.

Unlike the civil aviation situation over the conflict in Ukraine, whose skies were instantly shut to civil aviation following the Russian invasion in 2022, Israel kept its skies open, and Ben Gurion Airport remained operational, even amid unprecedented aerial threats. This reality was made possible by Israel’s cutting-edge, multi-layered aerial defense systems: Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, and others. Combined, these systems intercepted the vast majority of threats, shielding both civilian populations and critical infrastructure. This capability not only facilitated sustained economic and humanitarian connectivity, but it seems resilience and operational confidence are a main goal of Israel.

This achievement is unprecedented in modern aviation history. Never before has a country been targeted so intensely, for over 21 months, and still managed to maintain a functioning international airport. It is a testament not only to Israel’s technological defense capabilities, including the successful fulfillment of its strategic target of remaining connected to the world.

Despite this resilience, many foreign airlines chose to suspend operations in Israel in the wake of October 7 attacks. Some did so immediately and have yet to return. Others have shifted between suspension and resumption, pulling out during escalations and returning during relatively calm periods. Meanwhile, a handful of global airlines, including Hainan Airlines, Fly Dubai, and Etihad Airways, have remained active throughout the entire conflict, suggesting a more flexible evaluation of operational risks.

A Missile Too Close

On May 4, 2025, a missile launched by the Houthi rebels in Yemen as part of their efforts in the context of the broader Iranian-Israeli conflict landed near the terminal at Ben Gurion Airport, Israel’s international gateway. It was the first time since the war began that a projectile actually hit the vicinity of the airport itself. There were no casualties or damage, but the psychological and operational shock reverberated across the aviation industry.

Multiple airlines responded by suspending their flights to Tel Aviv once again. While some resumed services after several weeks once the situation had stabilized again, others, including major ones, have yet to return.

Were the decisions taken by airlines in the aftermath of the hit driven purely by safety and operational considerations? Or are other considerations shaping their decision-making?

A Complex Safety Environment, But Not an Unmanageable One

It’s important to acknowledge the justifiable fear felt by foreign flight crews. They are not based in Israel and are unaccustomed to the somewhat surreal reality of operating in a country under constant missile threat. For them, flying into Tel Aviv during an escalation is not just risky, it’s terrifying.

This sentiment intensified after the May 4 incident. Many crews expressed hesitation about returning, despite the continued, extremely effective interception rate of Israel’s defense systems during subsequent attacks. Their concerns are human, understandable, and deserve empathy.

However, it is important to note that the Israeli Civil Aviation Authority has not sat idly by in the face of these concerns. To reassure foreign carriers, the Aviation Authority formally invited airline executives to visit Israel. During their visit, the executives were given an in-depth demonstration of Israel’s air defense systems, including real-time simulations and operational briefings. The goal was to transparently demonstrate the multilayered protection Israel provides to its skies, its airports, and commercial aviation routes. For any airline evaluating its risk management responsibly, this was a rare opportunity to engage directly with the defense protocols in place.

The inconsistencies among airline responses become more apparent when we compare decisions regarding Israel with those made for other volatile regions.

Turkish Airlines and others have resumed flights to Damascus, Syria, a country still recovering from a decade-long civil war, rife with internal instability, terrorism, and regime uncertainty. Syria has virtually no functioning air defense system and remains a hotspot of regional conflict. Yet, these airlines felt confident enough to re-enter that market.

In the case of Turkish Airlines, expectations are low. As a government-controlled airline operating under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkish Airlines’ decision-making is widely understood to be politically driven. Erdoğan has openly backed the Ahmed al-Sharaa government, which replaced the Assad regime, and remains a key supporter of the current Syrian leadership. The resumption of flights to Damascus reflects Turkey’s broader political alignment, not necessarily a rigorous assessment of aviation safety. In that context, while regrettable, it is not surprising.

However, expectations are markedly different for European airlines, where decisions are expected to be based on professionalism and transparent risk assessments. Some airlines have recently resumed flights to Beirut, Lebanon. This decision raises questions when viewed through a risk-based lens. Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport is located in the Dahieh district, a stronghold and operational headquarters of Hezbollah. Since the November 2024 ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, Israel has carried out multiple precision strikes in Dahieh in response to Hezbollah’s ongoing efforts to rearm and restore capabilities that were significantly degraded during the Israeli campaign in September 2024. Lebanon remains politically unstable, has no functional air defense system, and faces ongoing threats from internal and external actors. In comparison, Tel Aviv offers a far more secure and technologically protected aviation environment. Some airlines’ choice to resume service to Beirut while continuing to delay their return to Tel Aviv underscores the inconsistencies in how the risk is assessed, and raises questions about whether political or other factors, rather than safety alone, are driving such decisions.

Another example is Ryanair, which continues to operate flights to Amman but has not yet restarted its service to Tel Aviv. It continues its policy of avoiding flying to Israel due to so-called safety concerns yet continues operating flights to a city whose airspace is functionally intertwined with Israel’s, and it naturally raises questions. Flights from Europe to Amman typically approach Jordanian airspace by passing over Israeli airspace at low altitude. In addition, during missile alerts, Amman-bound aircraft are delayed or placed in holding patterns just like Tel Aviv-bound flights. Presumably, the operational risk profiles should be closely aligned.

This disparity becomes harder to justify when viewed through a purely safety-focused lens, especially considering Israel’s vastly superior air defense infrastructure and track record of maintaining safe, functioning airspace during wartime.

This backdrop gives added weight to recent remarks made by the airline’s CEO, who told analysts in May 2025 that the airline was “losing patience” with what he described as ongoing “security disruptions” in Tel Aviv. He went as far as to say, “If they’re going to keep being disrupted by these security disruptions, frankly, we’d be better off sending those aircraft somewhere else in Europe.”[1]

While such frustrations from a commercial standpoint may be understandable, the terminology used, “security disruptions”, is revealing. It suggests a perception issue rather than a definitive risk analysis. Considering that many global carriers have resumed service to Tel Aviv under similar conditions, this position appears increasingly out of step. In this light, one cannot help but question whether its continued absence from the Israeli market stems from more than just operational risk, perhaps from a mix of political calculation, reputational sensitivity, or regional alignment.

Political Underpinning?

The inconsistencies in these risk assessments suggest that safety concerns may not be the sole factor. Israel’s airspace is indeed threatened, but it is also among the most protected in the world. The number of casualties or injuries from the thousands of missiles launched at Israel since October 7 has been surprisingly low, precisely because of its technological defenses and readiness.

In fact, Israel’s aviation environment may be more operationally secure than that of other Middle Eastern cities that these same airlines have chosen to serve. The logical conclusion, then, is that maybe political sensitivities are playing a role.

This dynamic was highlighted during a Knesset hearing in late May 2025, when a legal representative speaking on behalf of several foreign airlines, made a striking acknowledgment. Responding to questions about the airline’s prolonged absence from the Israeli market, she admitted, “Clearly, there are many political considerations here; no one denies that.” While she later clarified that her comments were made in a broader context and not solely in the name of a specific airline, the implication was clear: political factors are influencing the decisions of some European carriers to avoid Israel. She further emphasized that this was a categorical issue affecting all foreign airlines and urged the Israeli government to offer incentives to encourage the return of international carriers. Her comments added rare public confirmation to what many in the industry and Israeli public have long suspected—that the hesitation of some major airlines is shaped not only by security calculations, but also by geopolitical positioning and political sensitivities.[2]

For some airlines, especially European national carriers, public opinion, shareholder pressures, and foreign policy considerations may weigh heavily. Resuming service to Israel could be seen by certain audiences as an endorsement of Israel’s actions in the ongoing war, or as a provocation. Avoiding Israel, on the other hand, may offer political cover, even if it contradicts objective security assessments.

It is also a matter of reputational risk. Flying to Tel Aviv invites media scrutiny. Any incident, no matter how minor, could make headlines. In contrast, returning to Syria or Lebanon draws less attention, partly because those countries are already perceived as unstable, and partly because the geopolitical media narrative about those countries is less polarized in the West.

Economic Realities

While some of these carriers’ decisions might make short-term political or PR sense, they come at the cost of credibility and consistency and might actually reduce net profits. The Israeli market is highly profitable. Pre-war, Tel Aviv was a lucrative destination for many carriers due to strong tourism, high business travel demand, and large occupancy by Jewish and Israeli diaspora communities in Europe and North America. The latter factor remains in effect even now. In fact, some airlines that returned after the May 4 incident have seen record-high passenger loads and yields, driven by pent-up demand and limited supply.

Delta, United, Wizzair, and Air France-KLM, for example, have reaped the rewards of their calculated risk in returning. Their confidence in Israel’s operational safety, not just as a show of support, but as a business opportunity has given them a competitive edge in a market abandoned by their rivals.

A Call for Consistency

Ultimately, every airline must prioritize safety. No one is suggesting that the risks should be taken lightly. But risk should be assessed consistently.

Israel, with its advanced defenses and operational airport, offers a far more controlled environment than many Middle East destinations now deemed safe by airlines that have been hesitating to return to Tel Aviv.

What’s needed is an honest reckoning. If airlines are suspending flights to Israel due to political or reputational considerations, they should say so. But claiming it’s purely about “safety” while resuming flights to cities with weaker defenses and deeper instability raises legitimate questions.

In aviation, inconsistent standards don’t just cost market share; they erode public trust.

Conclusion

The skies over Israel are challenging, but they are navigable, protected, and open. Foreign airlines have every right to make cautious decisions. But they also have a responsibility to apply those decisions with integrity and consistency.

The question is no longer simply whether it is safe to fly to Israel, but whether the global aviation industry is willing to evaluate that safety objectively, without political bias.

And that, ironically, may be the more pressing issue for the industry’s credibility.

[1] timesofisrael.com/ryanair-says-its-sick-of-tel-aviv-disruptions-may-take-off-for-other-destinations/

[2] globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001511577